Benghazi: Does Barack Obama consider this terrorist attack to be another case of “workplace violence?”

Earlier this morning I read this story from ABC News about yesterday’s press conference and the possibility that Barack Obama might have violated the law by even mentioning that there was a sealed indictment for those whom the regime feels are responsible for the terrorist attack in Benghazi which left Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith dead.

While I am no lawyer I find it hard to believe that simply mentioning the fact that there is a sealed indictment, without disclosing what is in that indictment, is against the law. It seems to me we routinely learn about sealed indictments before they are opened but I could be wrong. And anyway, because Barack Obama and his wife once held law licenses, before they mysteriously gave them up for unknown reasons, we have to assume that the president would know if it was against the law to mention the sealed indictment. (Unless of course he wanted the indictment to be thrown out on a technicality.)

But that is not what I wanted to write about when I saved this article to revisit in tonight’s post. I wanted to write about a paragraph in the article which stated that the indictment is indicative of the fact that the Obama regime intends to pursue the case as a criminal case in civilian court rather than prosecuting those responsible as terrorists who committed an act of war against the United States.

The problem is that when I sat down to write about this and I reread the article this paragraph was not there. So either I read this somewhere else, ABC edited the original article, or I am going crazy.

I only read one article on this story so it cannot be possible that I read this somewhere else, so I am either losing my mind or ABC edited the article. I do not think I have lost my mind…..yet.

And Barack Obama did say he was “intent on capturing those who carried out this attack” during the press conference, so coupled with the MSM’s history, and the fact that there is a sealed indictment for these men, it is enough to make me think the Obama regime is going to try them in a civilian court even if I am misremembering the original article, so I have decided to go ahead with this post without the quote I am sure I saw.

At this point it looks as though my explanation and semi disclaimer is going to be quite a bit longer than the actual post but here goes.

Barack Obama is fond of using drones to kill the enemy, and I have no problem with that whatsoever, but drone strikes come with collateral damage, and that damage comes in the form of the unintended killing of women, children, and innocent bystanders.

We have no official numbers, but it appears as if hundreds have been killed by these drone strikes without concern for collateral damage, so why is it in this case that Barack Obama seems ready to capture these people alive and try them in civilian court rather than using a tactical drone strike to take them out when it is obvious to everyone who is paying attention that this was a coordinated attack and an act of war against the United States?

Could it be that he is unwilling to admit, much like in the Fort Hood shooting, that a terrorist attack happened on his watch on American soil? Is it possible that he is unwilling to label this as a terrorist attack because he fears it will appear as if his foreign policy has failed? Is it possible that he is going to label this attack as workplace violence as he did with Fort Hood in an attempt to downplay what happened on that fateful night?

BO reasons are much more sinister than the Liberal SOP for trying suspects in criminal court. No, no El Dictator is attempting to chill the Congressional Investigation by not allowing the committee to talk to or grant immunity to any suspects. He purposely let it be known that (maybe) there is a sealed indictment. We won’t know because it is illegal to discuss the existence of sealed indictment. And Benghazigate will not be a problem for Hilary. This is treason pure and simple.

He will say and do as he pleases. The American people (most of them) take him at his word, dangerous to do, but that is what happens. He looks all “presidential” when he is up in front of the flag and podium, except for the teleprompter. He is an actor on a stage, he does a swell job of it. The gray hair is a nice touch, mature looking. Why would we question him, when he tells us what is going on? He has our best interest at heart, right? Bottom line is that this Administration has no one that will stand up to them (except the trio) and they are trying to be corralled by the rest of our Representatives and Senators. Will they get away with this travesty as well as all the rest in the past, probably! Makes a person feel like just shrugging your shoulders and giving up, doesn’t it?

It is so frustrating at times to see so many people who cannot see through his disguise. You nailed it; he is an actor on the stage and he is playing his part perfectly for he is being guided by invisible hands bent on a worldwide goal.

I went looking for the paragraph you cited and couldn’t find it. It is very possible that it was edited out of the original article. At any rate, your post is spot on. The Obama administration would much rather try these people in civilian court. It has been their plan of action from the beginning and nothing has changed.

I reread it several times and it is gone, but I am sure it was there. I certainly did not make it up. :)
He will give these people constitutional rights even though they committed an act of war against America and he will do it to show the world he is better than Bush, but all he really is doing is showing the world he is weak.

I am beginning to wonder if there are any in Congress other than Lee, Cruz and Paul that care about what is happening? I guess the House has a few as well. I think the rest are being bought and paid for to NOT say anything. Sick is a good word, but the word I was looking for is pissed. I am pissed that we seem to have a bunch of wusses in Congress that don’t want to rock the boat. Do they not realize that if they don’t do it now, there will be no boat after this next election? Do they just want to go along to get along? What is it? There was a time this could and would not have happened when one party was doing so much “questionable” stuff. This is at the state level as well…we work and pay taxes and then the governor takes our tax money and pays off the low lives that do not seem to want to work, but will damn sure take what they are given. I would be embarrassed to do that, but there is generation after generation that is proud of doing it. They couldn’t care less where the money comes from or who had to work hard for them to get it. No, sick is not my word for it, Jim, pissed is. I am also pissed that we pay these slouches in Congress a very healthy wage (more than most of us earn)to NOT do what we put them there for. I think, once again, we should have TERM LIMITS and let them go back to their real jobs like everyone else…maybe then they would do what they had to do in a limited amount of time and get out, not become career politicians.

To answer your question Lou; with the exception of Lee, Paul, and Cruz the rest are going along to get along and I hope they all are defeated when they are up for reelection because it is clear to me they don’t give a damn about the people for they only care about holding on to their power.

I would say that “power” has gone to a lot of their heads. They are NOT supposed to be making decisions for us without our OK, but guess they did not get the memo. And, as usual, people will go to the next election and vote for the same SOB’s, we see this time after time. You would think there are enough people that are starting to suffer, that this would not happen, but I would not bet on it.

For some reason people do not seem to be putting two and two together and equating their suffering from the policies of the politicians in Washington. If they did we would not see the same inept, elitist politicians continue to win reelection.